READY FOR TODAY – EVOLVING FOR TOMORROW
A comparison of the above methods/models provides a hint as to the most efficient and effective way of conducting CoG analysis.
NATO’s model is the winner by far because it concentrates more positive and less negative points than other methods.
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
NATO Analysis ModelPlanning Concepts (COPD) 6
Analytical method linking the Critical Factors through a logical
sequence
It requires holistic-comprehensive and detailed understanding of the
adversaries (System of Systems Analysis –SOSA)
Provide tangibles CoG
Provides useful planning concepts such objectives, Decisive
Conditions (DCs), effects, actions, restraints etc. 23
Warden’s Five Rings
Identifies the central role of leadership (degrade or dislocation of the
external rings has impact on leadership)
It does not identify strengths and weaknesses of the adversary (CCs,
CVs)
Oversimplification – It draws the planners to targeting without paying
attention to conditions and effects
Lack of analysis process for the rings – It requires detailed analysis
of the rings to identify their components but missing the relationship-
interaction between them; and analysis method
It refers mainly to the strategic level, not operational
It refers basically to state-actors, not insurgent groups, terrorist
organisations etc.
Barlow’s NEV Model
Provides more detailed analysis than the ring model but not so much
as the NATO model
As per Five-Ring Model
It accounts the relationship-interaction between elements and
external actors
CARVER
It focusses on vulnerable essential elements of adversary (vulnerable
CR) and their CV
Partial CoG analysis tool (link between CC, CR and CVs) without
paid attention to interdependence-relations with external actors
(system)
It is not used in determining the CoG
It constitutes a useful tool only if it is used in conjunction with other
methods in identifying the most lucrative elements for targeting
It requires detailed understanding of the adversaries
Synthesis Model
It provides a detailed analysis contributing to a better targeting of
CVs
It needs time and personnel
It is more complicated than NATO
Godzilla Method
It is simple and provides an effective way of identifying the CoG in
precise. It requires intelligence efforts in better understanding of the
adversary
It has an inherent validity test (…if the answer is ‘No’, then the
removed strength is the CoG) It does not link CoG, CRs and CVs.
It focusses only on the identification of the CoG without any other
planning outputs (objectives, DC, effects or actions)
23 Decisive Condition (DC) is ‘a combination of circumstances, effects, or a specific key event, critical factor, or function that when achieved allows commanders to gain a marked advantage
over an opponent or contribute materially to achieving an operational objective’. Effect is defined as ‘a change in the state of a system (or system element), that results from one or more
actions, or other causes’. COPD, Ibid, p. L-2.
ALLIED RAPID REACTION CORPS
21